# Herb Reed Enterprises, LLC v. Florida Entertainment Management, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · December 2, 2013 · 736 F.3d 1239

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798286

## Case

- **Full name:** HERB REED ENTERPRISES, LLC, a Massachusetts Company, Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellee, v. FLORIDA ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT, INC., a Nevada Company; Larry Marshak, Defendants-Counter-Claimants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** December 2, 2013
- **Citations:** 736 F.3d 1239; 108 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 2004; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 23938; 2013 WL 6224288
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wallace
- **Judges:** Wallace, McKeown, Ikuta
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 354 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798286

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “the traditional four-factor test employed by courts of equity, including the requirement that the plaintiff must establish irreparable injury in seeking a permanent injunction” applies not only in the patent and copyright context, but “the same principle applies …
- holding that, for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff must establish that monetary damages are inadequate to compensate for the injury
- holding that a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction in a trademark infringement case must establish a likelihood of irreparable harm that is grounded in evidence, not in conclusory or speculative allegations of harm
- stating the Court “permissibly relied on the 19 declaration” of one of the parties’ general managers in considering a motion for a 20 preliminary injunction in a trademark case, though reversing and remanding because “the 21 record fails to support a finding of likely irrepara…
- finding that the district court abused its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction in 22 reliance on “unsupported and conclusory statements regarding the harm that [plaintiff] might suffer”

## Opinion text

WALLACE, Senior Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I agree that the district court’s preliminary injunction should be reversed. However, I write separately to emphasize that we are solely reviewing a preliminary injunction, and that we thus can express no view on issues arising after a trial dealing with a permanent injunction. See, e.g., Barahona-Gomez v. Reno, 167 F.3d 1228, 1234-35, 1238 (9th Cir.1999) (stating that the court, in reviewing a preliminary injunction, “express[ed] no opinion on the ultimate merits of [the] action”).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9798286. Public record. Not legal advice.